Dear developer,
we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this commit to Kamailio module ims_registrar_scscf
commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosifov@gmail.com Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300 ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK - Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the exact contact for Re-Registration.
We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261#section-10.3 ) :
8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST contain Contact header field values enumerating all current bindings.
We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different consecutive REGISTER using different combination of IP/port. Running our testcase on a version previous your commit, the 200OK of the second registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as we expect by the RFC). After your commit, in this testcase, the 200OK lists only one binding. It seems that the changes in your commit do not match the RFC specifications. Can you please explain why these changes have been made?
Thanks and Kind Regards,
Hello,
I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple bindings in case of multiple bindings.
There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can comment. But with my current information I would say it should be probably made configurable; keeping the previous behaviour according to the standard as default.
Cheers,
Henning
Hi all, The changes were made a long time ago. What I can say is that I confirm with both of you. I will add a new option and return the original behaviour following the RFC.
BR
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:12 PM Henning Westerholt hw@gilawa.com wrote:
Hello,
I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple bindings in case of multiple bindings.
There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can comment. But with my current information I would say it should be probably made configurable; keeping the previous behaviour according to the standard as default.
Cheers,
Henning
-- Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services - https://gilawa.com
-----Original Message----- From: sr-dev sr-dev-bounces@lists.kamailio.org On Behalf Of Scherney Theodor Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM To: sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org Subject: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
Dear developer,
we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this commit to Kamailio module ims_registrar_scscf
commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosifov@gmail.com Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300 ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
- Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the exact contact for Re-Registration.
We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261#section-10.3 ) :
- The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST contain
Contact header field values enumerating all current bindings.
We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different consecutive REGISTER using different combination of IP/port. Running our testcase on a version previous your commit, the 200OK of the second registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as we expect by the RFC). After your commit, in this testcase, the 200OK lists only one binding. It seems that the changes in your commit do not match the RFC specifications. Can you please explain why these changes have been made?
Thanks and Kind Regards,
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
For greater flexibility, the option should not be a module param, instead a flag for save, so the two options can be used simultaneously. Also, all the functions provided by the ims_registrar_scscf should have the "scscf_" prefix, just like the ims_registrar_pcscf module to avoid overlapping with the generic registrar module.
-ovidiu
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:59 AM Aleksandar Yosifov a.v.yosifov@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, The changes were made a long time ago. What I can say is that I confirm with both of you. I will add a new option and return the original behaviour following the RFC.
BR
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:12 PM Henning Westerholt hw@gilawa.com wrote:
Hello,
I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple bindings in case of multiple bindings.
There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can comment. But with my current information I would say it should be probably made configurable; keeping the previous behaviour according to the standard as default.
Cheers,
Henning
-- Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services - https://gilawa.com
-----Original Message----- From: sr-dev sr-dev-bounces@lists.kamailio.org On Behalf Of Scherney Theodor Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM To: sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org Subject: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
Dear developer,
we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this commit to Kamailio module ims_registrar_scscf
commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosifov@gmail.com Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300 ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
- Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the exact contact for Re-Registration.
We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261#section-10.3 ) :
- The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST contain Contact header field values enumerating all current bindings.
We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different consecutive REGISTER using different combination of IP/port. Running our testcase on a version previous your commit, the 200OK of the second registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as we expect by the RFC). After your commit, in this testcase, the 200OK lists only one binding. It seems that the changes in your commit do not match the RFC specifications. Can you please explain why these changes have been made?
Thanks and Kind Regards,
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
Hi,
Thanks! Can you please give me details about the commit, to fall back to that changes.
BR
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: sr-dev sr-dev-bounces@lists.kamailio.org Im Auftrag von Ovidiu Sas Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. Juni 2022 19:58 An: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org Cc: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosifov@gmail.com Betreff: Re: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
[You don't often get email from osas@voipembedded.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
For greater flexibility, the option should not be a module param, instead a flag for save, so the two options can be used simultaneously. Also, all the functions provided by the ims_registrar_scscf should have the "scscf_" prefix, just like the ims_registrar_pcscf module to avoid overlapping with the generic registrar module.
-ovidiu
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:59 AM Aleksandar Yosifov a.v.yosifov@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, The changes were made a long time ago. What I can say is that I confirm with both of you. I will add a new option and return the original behaviour following the RFC.
BR
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:12 PM Henning Westerholt hw@gilawa.com wrote:
Hello,
I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple bindings in case of multiple bindings.
There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can comment. But with my current information I would say it should be probably made configurable; keeping the previous behaviour according to the standard as default.
Cheers,
Henning
-- Henning Westerholt - https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fska latan.de%2Fblog%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com% 7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1 %7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&a mp;sdata=UZfXR2G5v9MMjogqTCPes%2Blx%2FBTcJTrzA9082rIFv%2Fo%3D&res erved=0 Kamailio services - https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgil awa.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060 a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0 %7C637908263631287730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJ QIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata =yReM%2FnleLQ%2F6Ij2FVnI%2B3C8gmb7JYBjQRSw2OujcIeo%3D&reserved=0
-----Original Message----- From: sr-dev sr-dev-bounces@lists.kamailio.org On Behalf Of Scherney Theodor Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM To: sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org Subject: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
Dear developer,
we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this commit to Kamailio module ims_registrar_scscf
commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosifov@gmail.com Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300 ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
- Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the exact contact for Re-Registration.
We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 ( https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracke... ) :
- The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST contain Contact header field values enumerating all current bindings.
We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different consecutive REGISTER using different combination of IP/port. Running our testcase on a version previous your commit, the 200OK of the second registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as we expect by the RFC). After your commit, in this testcase, the 200OK lists only one binding. It seems that the changes in your commit do not match the RFC specifications. Can you please explain why these changes have been made?
Thanks and Kind Regards,
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flis ts.kamailio.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsr-dev&data=05%7 C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98 b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7C Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1 haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sKn1uNyrIob1Wda22ZmEvay %2FnIk6hn7hQ6IzyBBDNyU%3D&reserved=0
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flis ts.kamailio.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsr-dev&data=05%7 C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98 b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7C Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1 haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sKn1uNyrIob1Wda22ZmEvay %2FnIk6hn7hQ6IzyBBDNyU%3D&reserved=0
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist s.kamailio.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsr-dev&data=05%7C0 1%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0% 7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7CUnkn own%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwi LCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sKn1uNyrIob1Wda22ZmEvay%2FnIk 6hn7hQ6IzyBBDNyU%3D&reserved=0
-- VoIP Embedded, Inc. https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.voipemb...
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.kama...
Hi, Check this one d772f47ba196633c53504677103626ecc1904d54 from master.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 12:29 PM Scherney Theodor < Theodor.Scherney@kontron.com> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks! Can you please give me details about the commit, to fall back to that changes.
BR
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: sr-dev sr-dev-bounces@lists.kamailio.org Im Auftrag von Ovidiu Sas Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. Juni 2022 19:58 An: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org Cc: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosifov@gmail.com Betreff: Re: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
[You don't often get email from osas@voipembedded.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
For greater flexibility, the option should not be a module param, instead a flag for save, so the two options can be used simultaneously. Also, all the functions provided by the ims_registrar_scscf should have the "scscf_" prefix, just like the ims_registrar_pcscf module to avoid overlapping with the generic registrar module.
-ovidiu
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:59 AM Aleksandar Yosifov a.v.yosifov@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, The changes were made a long time ago. What I can say is that I confirm
with both of you. I will add a new option and return the original behaviour following the RFC.
BR
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:12 PM Henning Westerholt hw@gilawa.com
wrote:
Hello,
I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple
bindings in case of multiple bindings.
There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can
comment.
But with my current information I would say it should be probably made
configurable; keeping the previous behaviour according to the standard as default.
Cheers,
Henning
-- Henning Westerholt - https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fska latan.de%2Fblog%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com% 7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1 %7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&a mp;sdata=UZfXR2G5v9MMjogqTCPes%2Blx%2FBTcJTrzA9082rIFv%2Fo%3D&res erved=0 Kamailio services - https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgil awa.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060 a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0 %7C637908263631287730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJ QIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata =yReM%2FnleLQ%2F6Ij2FVnI%2B3C8gmb7JYBjQRSw2OujcIeo%3D&reserved=0
-----Original Message----- From: sr-dev sr-dev-bounces@lists.kamailio.org On Behalf Of Scherney Theodor Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM To: sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org Subject: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
Dear developer,
we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this commit to Kamailio module ims_registrar_scscf
commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosifov@gmail.com Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300 ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
- Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the exact contact for Re-Registration.
We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 (
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracke... ) :
- The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST
contain Contact header field values enumerating all current bindings.
We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different
consecutive REGISTER using different combination of IP/port.
Running our testcase on a version previous your commit, the 200OK of
the second registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as we expect by the RFC). After your commit, in this testcase, the 200OK lists only one binding. It seems that the changes in your commit do not match the RFC specifications. Can you please explain why these changes have been made?
Thanks and Kind Regards,
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flis ts.kamailio.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsr-dev&data=05%7 C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98 b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7C Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1 haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sKn1uNyrIob1Wda22ZmEvay %2FnIk6hn7hQ6IzyBBDNyU%3D&reserved=0
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flis ts.kamailio.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsr-dev&data=05%7 C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98 b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7C Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1 haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sKn1uNyrIob1Wda22ZmEvay %2FnIk6hn7hQ6IzyBBDNyU%3D&reserved=0
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist s.kamailio.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsr-dev&data=05%7C0 1%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0% 7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7CUnkn own%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwi LCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sKn1uNyrIob1Wda22ZmEvay%2FnIk 6hn7hQ6IzyBBDNyU%3D&reserved=0
-- VoIP Embedded, Inc.
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.voipemb...
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.kama...
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
-
Aleksandar Yosifov -
Henning Westerholt -
Ovidiu Sas -
Scherney Theodor